It would ONLY be rescinding a Federal law, returning the decision to the States or the people per the 10th amendment, where a great many other things should probably be returned by the Federal government, especially taxation if we hope to ever get Federal spending under control.
That is an uninformed question. Courts don't DO. They are not elected by us, and they are not vested with power to DO. That's what's wrong with leftie judges - they make up laws.
The answer was perfectly clear. The only vagueness here is the left's ignorance about the balance of power. Read a book sometime.
If they overturn RvW, it should be based on a Constitutional question. That isn't making law. That is insuring the Constitutionality of a law or regulation is in place. For example, laws banning same sex marriage were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court because they violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The Supreme Court did not create a law that said same sex couples could legally marry.
So, you are saying that the Government should be able to force a company owner to do business with persons/groups that the owner does not choose to do business with? How would a 'Government' like that be different from the "Big Brother" government of Orwell's masterpiece, "1984"...?
Nobody should ever be forced to do business or associate with anyone they don't want to have anything to do with. Black, white, christian, jew, muslim, gay, straight, no matter what. If you don't want to have anything to do with some person the government should never have the power to force you to.
You'll never get federal spending under control by electing representatives to Congress who continue passing massive tax cut laws for the wealthy. Those taxes fund the government, and social programs that benefit the general population. Cutting every social program that helps those less fortunate is not only wrong, but is cold-hearted, cruel, com-passionless, and designed, as usual, to benefit the wealthiest among us at the expense of everyone else.
It is the responsibility of the federal government to protect the rights of ALL its citizens. Every citizen should have the right to shop or eat or live wherever, and love whomever they wish. When a business decides it will only serve those of the same religion, or same color, or same sexual persuasion as the owner, then the rights of many are being waived in order to protect the personal prejudices of one. Is that really fair? Is that really what you want--the right of anyone to project their personal prejudices onto anyone and everyone around them, and have that legally protected? Not me.
Where is state given the responsibility to provide people the means to do so? Management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone; you have no right to be served.
No, I do not think it is the right of a person to PROJECT 'personal prejudices' onto other people, although this can frequently get snarled in the confusion regarding Freedom of Speech. It depends on what this "projection" may consist of.... But, it's one thing to go out and attack people, or to try to convince others to treat other people badly (or unlawfully), BUT, it's another thing entirely simply to be in private enterprise, offering goods and services in accordance with one's own personal business standards -- none of which are the government's business! If a person does not want to provide goods/services for anyone, they should not (NOT) be forced to do it by the government -- period! Thus: If a Jewish baker, or, say, a gay Jewish baker, refuses to take a customer's order to bake a cake to be decorated with "Happy Birthday Hitler" and have swastikas on it, the baker should not (NOT) be forced to do it by the government! And, If a Christian baker (or a baker of any other faith, or no faith at all) refuses to take a customer's order to bake a cake that celebrates a 'gay marriage', that baker should not (NOT) be forced to do it by the government! If you really disagree with that, then too bad you missed out on a time when there was a government that would have suited your viewpoint by telling people who they should, and should not, do business with.... .Ah, those were the days...?
Yeah, no. The police violate rights all the time and almost never face consequences. "Paid administrative leave." Awwww, poor lil' fellas. Reading Miranda rights and not beating the **** out of a suspect to get a confession are two really easy things to do. You can train a 5th grader to read someone his/her rights and NOT beating the crap out of someone is really easy to achieve.
In my home town, after the Civil Rights Act was passed, one business required a membership to enter and blacks were denied becoming members. The speed in which it went out of business seemed to indicate just how many persons were truly racist in our town. The right to associate or not is something that should not be denied by government. It can be used to benefit those who feel denied by allowing them to compete more profitably if they are truly being done a wrong.
None of the above. Support the Constitution as an original still and not interpret it to fit their political agenda.